More Evidence Links Ultraprocessed Foods To Dementia (nytimes.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: People who regularly eat processed red meat, like hot dogs, bacon, sausage, salami and bologna, have a greater risk of developing dementia later in life. That was the conclusion of preliminary research presented this week at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference. The study tracked more than 130,000 adults in the United States for up to 43 years. During that period, 11,173 people developed dementia. Those who consumed about two servings of processed red meat per week had a 14 percent greater risk of developing dementia compared to those who ate fewer than three servings per month. Eating unprocessed red meat, like steak or pork chops, did not significantly increase the risk for dementia, though people who ate it every day were more likely to report that they felt their cognition had declined than those who ate red meat less often. (The results of the study have not yet been published in a journal.) There have been several studies published in the past few years that have found an association between ultraprocessed foods and cognitive decline. The report notes a study of more than 10,000 middle-aged adults in Brazil, which found that "people who consumed 20 percent or more of their daily calories from ultraprocessed foods experienced more rapid cognitive decline, particularly on tests of executive functioning, over the course of eight years."
Ultraprocessed and cured are not exactly the same (Score:5, Informative)
I cured my own bacon at home, it is a simple process but does include curing salts to ensure the meat does not give you botulism when you eat it. I've cured salami as well, and other than the fact that the meat is ground first that's not a whole much more.
Factory made hotdogs and bologna, sure they can call that ultra processed, they usually include a long list of things that most of us do not know how to pronounce.
BTW kids, don't believed the "uncured" meats lie. They use the very same chemical to cure, but instead of controlled levels they use 'natural' plant juices which means that they have to put larger quantities to make sure they do not give you botulism.
Re:Ultraprocessed and cured are not exactly the sa (Score:4, Informative)
Those chemicals are called nitrites and it's been involved in a lot of problems with health (i.e., they aren't great). Regular stuff will often just have it listed as "nitrites". "Natural" or "Uncured" stuff will have it listed instead as "celery extract". It's the exact same thing - just "celery extract" is more pronounceable and less scary than say, "sodium nitrite".
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that eating celery is likely to result in dementia?
Re:Ultraprocessed and cured are not exactly the sa (Score:5, Interesting)
eh, I have gout, and 'uncured' meats don't trigger it, while traditional deli meat does.
the symptoms are not mild like 'I feel slightly more itchy', cured meats make it feel like my toe is in a vice for hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cured my own bacon at home, it is a simple process but does include curing salts
Artesanal nitrates will kill you just as dead as factory applied ones.
It is unfortunate that the inherent curing process of bacon makes it pretty bad for you. Oh well! Who wants to live forever anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are eating a food live, it is processed. Ultra-processed doesn't have meaning, just like "organic" and "natural causes".
Re: Ultraprocessed and cured are not exactly the s (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While things like traditional salami are simply preserved food that we've been eating for centuries without dying from it.
Re: (Score:1)
don't believed the "uncured" meats lie. They use the very same chemical to cure
What, salt?
they have to put larger quantities to make sure they do not give you botulism
No, I cook the meat to make sure they do not give me trichinosis, and it's shipped frozen to make sure they do not give me botulism.
Re: (Score:2)
I cured my own bacon at home, it is a simple process but does include curing salts to ensure the meat does not give you botulism when you eat it. I've cured salami as well, and other than the fact that the meat is ground first that's not a whole much more.
Yup, a bit of spice, and that nitrate saves lives instead of harming them. If I make brisket or pulled pork, it gets sealed in serving portions and put in the freezer ASAP after cooling. Well, same goes for the other stuff I cure.
Factory made hotdogs and bologna, sure they can call that ultra processed, they usually include a long list of things that most of us do not know how to pronounce.
Which for me - I wonder about the content of cured meats in Brazil, where the study took place.
BTW kids, don't believed the "uncured" meats lie. They use the very same chemical to cure, but instead of controlled levels they use 'natural' plant juices which means that they have to put larger quantities to make sure they do not give you botulism.
Exactly. Example - The Oscar Mayer "Classic Uncured" hot dogs has right on its ingredient list - Cultured Celery Juice. High in Nitrates, and just because it comes from a vegetable do
Re: (Score:2)
One ingredient that is usually used as a 'natural' substitute for nitrite, is celery juice.
It actually contains nitrite, so the meat is pinkish, rather than grey.
Same ingredient, but from a plant, so the non-discerning think it is better, while it is the same t
nutrition is a garbage field of research (Score:5, Insightful)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
Also, salami, bacon, etc. are not "ultraprocessed foods". They are generally "processed foods".
"Ultraprocessed foods" are the ones that are invented in a lab or that have a bazillion different additives.
Re:nutrition is a garbage field of research (Score:4, Insightful)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
Yeah, that was my first thought.
We already know that dementia is correlated with income, and low-income people eat a lot of hotdogs and baloney. It's cheap protein needing near zero prep.
Disclaimer: I am a smug vegetarian.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
Yeah, that was my first thought.
We already know that dementia is correlated with income, and low-income people eat a lot of hotdogs and baloney. It's cheap protein needing near zero prep.
Disclaimer: I am a smug vegetarian.
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but lack of correlation always implies lack of causation. Yes, controlled double blind studies are the gold standard, but that doesn't mean that all other studies are worthless. Checking the correlation between income, race, age, general health, etc. and dementia can be done fairly easily and is generally a part of most studies.
There may be other legitimate problems with the study, but checking income as a factor shouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the article is paywalled
Search Google for the headline and then click on the link that Google gives you. Did you not watch "The Office"?
Re: (Score:2)
So a study that hasn't been published, with self-reported results. I think I will take this study with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
How does claiming "it's impossible to accurately assign causality" mean that a study is "worthless"? Pathetic straw man, even for /.
"Checking the correlation between income, race, age, general health, etc. and dementia can be done fairly easily and is generally a part of most studies."
Yet doesn't refute the claim. Merely "checking" isn't enough.
"There may be other legitimate problems with the study, but checking income as a factor shouldn't be a problem."
"Shouldn't be", yes. That does not say what you im
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of correlation doesn't imply lack of causation because in any given study, there may be counteracting factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The general population of individuals that have an unhealthy diet may have other lifestyle factors that promote early dementia.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
Yeah, that was my first thought.
We already know that dementia is correlated with income, and low-income people eat a lot of hotdogs and baloney. It's cheap protein needing near zero prep.
Disclaimer: I am a smug vegetarian.
How do you deal with the naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you deal with the naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables?
I delegate the responsibility to my digestive system and intestinal flora.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you deal with the naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables?
I delegate the responsibility to my digestive system and intestinal flora.
The correct answer!
It's not that it's a garbage field (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a problem with every field of study but it's especially bad for nutrition studies because it's easy to gin up some fear and clicks from any headline about food because everybody's got to eat
Plus as soon as a scientists so much as farts in the direction of a peer reviewed journal, someone will spring up to sell you something to do with health or wellness or detox or whatever the latest craze is with a bunch of scientific-sounding language.
Re:nutrition is a garbage field of research (Score:4, Informative)
Well, in the old days they'd just stuff chimpanzees full of the individual chemicals found in processed foods until they figured out which one melts their brains. Nowadays PETA would freak out about that, so we're stuck with the "garbage science". I understand that probably comes across as sounding callous towards the suffering of animals, but gaining a greater understanding of biology has historically required a lot of rather messy reverse engineering methods.
Re: (Score:1)
"I understand that probably comes across as sounding callous towards the suffering of animals..."
No, it comes off as much worse than that. It comes off as you ridiculing others preemptively for caring about the welfare of animals, because that's who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the old days they'd just stuff chimpanzees full of the individual chemicals found in processed foods until they figured out which one melts their brains.
Pretty sure in the old days they'd dump any toxic crap they wanted into the rivers until the rivers caught fire one too many times for people to put up with. And also fund studies saying actually smoking is good for you. That sound a lot cheaper and more profitable than paying a few bucks to survey participants, or thousands of dollars per chimp for a long term study.
Re:nutrition is a garbage field of research (Score:5, Informative)
> None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
While randomized controlled trials are the gold standard, they are not the end-all-be-all of studies and lots can be learned with longitudinal studies like these.
If we do a study following 100,000 people for 20 years and find a strong correlation between falling off a roof and breaking an arm, sure pedantically you can't show a causal link but we've learned enough to say falling off of a roof is bad for you.
And correlation can imply causation [youtube.com].
Also, you're making up your own definitions. "Processed" and "Ultraprocessed" have generally agreed-upon meanings. You don't seem to agree with those meanings, but that's your problem.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Also, you're making up your own definitions. "Processed" and "Ultraprocessed" have generally agreed-upon meanings."
So says you. A good faith argument would include providing evidence of those "generally agreed-upon meanings" which you have conspicuously not done.
"And correlation can imply causation [youtube.com]."
"Imply" is not the same as "accurately assign". Another bad faith argument.
"If we do a study following 100,000 people for 20 years and find a strong correlation between falling off a roof and br
Re: (Score:3)
"Also, you're making up your own definitions. "Processed" and "Ultraprocessed" have generally agreed-upon meanings."
So says you. A good faith argument would include providing evidence of those "generally agreed-upon meanings" which you have conspicuously not done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] There ya go.
Re: (Score:2)
That's either a crap classification system or a crap summary of it. It's not even internally consistent. Minimally-processed foods "are unprocessed foods modified through industrial methods such as the removal of unwanted parts, crushing, drying, fractioning, grinding [...]", whereas processed culinary ingredients "are derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes such as pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying". Is gound wheat (flour) "minimally processed" or "processed"? Why doe
Re: (Score:2)
That's either a crap classification system or a crap summary of it.
Well what is stopping you, the acknowledged leader in what processed foods are - you can go into Wikipedia, and place the absolute truth, you can destroy another beautiful theory with the ugly facts.
tl;dr - take it up with them my dear font of all that is true. It is your duty.
Re: (Score:2)
> None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
While randomized controlled trials are the gold standard, they are not the end-all-be-all of studies and lots can be learned with longitudinal studies like these.
Yes, What I was curious about was the contents of "ultraprocessed" food in Brazil. Different countries have different standards of what they allow in meat.
If we do a study following 100,000 people for 20 years and find a strong correlation between falling off a roof and breaking an arm, sure pedantically you can't show a causal link but we've learned enough to say falling off of a roof is bad for you.
And correlation can imply causation [youtube.com].
Yah, there is a non-zero chance that the person falling off the roof wi
Re: (Score:2)
This is intellectually disingenuous. You're presenting a case where the causality is obvious and inversion or external causes are hard to imagine. The ad hominem of accusing those who promote accurate science as pedants is also uncalled for and fallacious.
The classic problem with studies like these is that people who eat more (ultra)processed foods are probably in a lower socioeconomic class (steak is expensive compared to hotdogs) and thus probably smoke more often. If you want to say anything meaningful a
Re: (Score:2)
> You're presenting a case where the causality is obvious and inversion or external causes are hard to imagine.
Which is exactly the point. The claim "correlation does not imply causality" is easily undercut with an example nearly everyone superficially agrees to be causal, yet arguably isn't.
> The ad hominem of accusing those who promote accurate science as pedants is also uncalled for and fallacious.
Y'know, if you're gonna throw around words like that it REALLY helps if you understand what they mean
Re: (Score:2)
The claim "correlation does not imply causality" is easily undercut with an example nearly everyone superficially agrees to be causal, yet arguably isn't.
The only reason why "we've learned enough to say falling off of a roof is bad for you" would be true in the example would be if there is indeed a causal link. If you find a strong correlation between not living in an apartment (which means less falling off roofs) and breaking an arm, the "correlation implies causation" camp would similarly have to 'conclude' that not living in an apartment is bad for you (which is nonsense). The point stands: correlation does not imply causality.
There was no ad-hominem
Yes, there was. The word "pe
Re: (Score:2)
> If we do a study following 100,000 people for 20 years and find a strong correlation between falling off a roof and breaking an arm, sure pedantically you can't show a causal link but we've learned enough to say falling off of a roof is bad for you.
That's not really a very good analogy.
A better one would be if a study followed 100,000 people who drove pickup trucks, and found that they're more likely to have permanent hand injuries like missing fingers. If that were true, it obviously wouldn't be _beca
Re: (Score:2)
Also, salami, bacon, etc. are not "ultraprocessed foods". They are generally "processed foods".
So? They are still high in salt and nitrites. Just because they're slightly less harmful doesn't make them safe. That's like saying you'd rather get shot in the arm with a .22 than a .40. And yes, salami and bacon can be ultraprocessed depending on what is added to them to keep them shelf stable in the store.
Processed meats [webmd.com] are also named often as the biggest culprits of unhealthy diets due to high calories, low protein, fillers, and preservatives such as nitrates and nitrites. Although it may be easier for some people to ditch bacon or hot dogs, sandwich lovers may find it more difficult to go without deli meat.
"Ultraprocessed foods" are the ones that are invented in a lab or that have a bazillion different addit
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the severity of certain additives without supporting evidence. This is really at the heart of the complaint you are responding to. The purpose of the term "ultra-processed" is to be vague and poke the lizard brain. You accept the poking, he challenges it.
Also, it appears your objection to his definition of "ultra-processed" is that he has not defined what a "lab" is. Otherwise, your definition and his are suspiciously similar.
"All these excuses reminds me of cigarettes."
But without all the ov
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the term "ultra-processed" is to be as specific as is reasonable for nutrition survey data. It's very expensive to actually watch what people eat, so to generate data on what to look at more specifically you rely on asking them. There are a handful of standard questionnaires, and they divide food into classifications based on easy questions pretty much everybody can answer.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
But ... but ... things that aren't cool are bad! And these studies confirm it! At least, the studies that get news coverage ...
Re: (Score:2)
All of the bad outcomes (heart disease, dementia and others) all seem to correlate to inflammation. Anything you can do to reduce inflammation will help you feel better and live longer. Anything you do to increase inflammation will do the opposite.
Artificial inflammation reducing (via drugs may or may not help anything since it really only reduces it and does not fix the issues).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
None of these long-term studies are randomized control trials, so it's impossible to accurately assign causality.
Also, salami, bacon, etc. are not "ultraprocessed foods". They are generally "processed foods".
"Ultraprocessed foods" are the ones that are invented in a lab or that have a bazillion different additives.
Yeah, sausage isn't an "ultra-processed food". Doritos or Pop-Tarts, sure, but sausage is ground up pork with some spices, essentially.
I'm wondering if it had occurred to the research people that if someone eats a lot of hot dogs and burgers and sausage per week, etc, than perhaps they're also putting away lots of fries, chips, candies and deserts, etc. The effect could be anything from high inputs of corn products to high sugar intake, or some combination of intakes. Seems kind of strange to go "Sausage! A
Re:nutrition is a garbage field of research (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't seen one that controlled for economic status yet, got a link to one? Because all the ones that come up in various media seem to be non-random, uncontrolled studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the one in the summary.
Actually, probably all the studies mentioned in the summary did, except all but one of the links is a news article that doesn't properly reference the studies they're talking about.
It's quite possible "you haven't seen one that controlled for economic status yet" because you haven't actually read any.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read a bunch because they pop up on r/science all the time. The article linked wasn't about one study, it just had links and references to various things, mostly news articles. The study you mention was linked in the middle of everything (and at the bottom of the Slashdot summary, which is where I found it). It did control for economics somewhat (everyone worked for the same company), but was a self-reported study based on questionnaires, which seems to be a hallmark of all the junk nutritional studies
Re: (Score:2)
The only actual study linked in the summary is the Brazilian one. They included a survey asking about income and excluded anyone who didn't complete it. They have a whole section on potential confounders. The study the story is actually talking about is not identified, but if it's presented at a major conference like AAIC it's almost certainly going to have the basics covered.
There certainly is a lot of shitty "research" out there, and the news doesn't really distinguish. There are a lot that do it right th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You know you can buy emulsifiers and gums at most supermarkets these days, right? Mine has both xanthan and guar gum.
Heck, eggs are emulsifiers. So is the water from a can of chickpeas (sometimes goes by the fancy name "aquafaba").
Re: (Score:2)
"Wrong, and please name some."
Not defending the definition, but how about Cheetos? Or is this a pedantic complaint about the definition of "bazillion"?
I distrust self reported info (Score:2)
"people who ate it every day were more likely to report that they felt their cognition had declined"
Particularly in this case, trusting self reported info seems pretty foolish to me. Or maybe I eat too much steak.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a large, large field of self-reported data reported in academic journals, with the social sciences using self-reported surveys to mill produce questionable research around a social or political narrative.
And add, for good measure, all of those 'We interviewed 34 people from favored demographic group X, and produced published 'research' that there's a 'crisis' which needs immediate government programs, police changes, taxpayer funded research, and donations to 'politically like-minded' non-profits.
Re: (Score:2)
The study can be found at https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com] .
I can't access much of the linked NYT article, as it's paywalled, but I was able to extract out that much.
The study didn't rely just on self reported data. Participants were put through a cognitive test up to 3 times for every wave of of the study. There were three waves, each wave lasting 4 years.
CINC (Score:1)
We need a button to just press with each of these "studies." There are a million explanations why there might be a correlation. And there are a million correlations you could find for any outcome/disease/condition.
Re: (Score:3)
And that study exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone advocating NOT paying attention?
Without knowing causation, you may be aware of a problem without knowing what to do about it. The entire point of an article like this is to imply causation, to suggest that you need to avoid certain foods when evidence for that is not presented. Your 10 million person study may exist, so what?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with pointing the finger at ultra-processed food is the self selection bias. Someone who eats ultra-processed food every week is probably also making other bad health choices. Likewise, someone who rarely eats ultra-processed food is probably also making other good health choices. It would be really difficult to find a cohort of people where eating ultra-processed or not is the only good or bad choice they are making. Just off the top of my head, I guarantee that the people who eat more ultr
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation.
You did it wrong, it's like this - CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!!! Anyhow, despite the mantra, you waste a lot less time when you investigate the correlation than if you randomly look for anything but the correlation. Correlation is an important first step or observation when trying to find causes.
Excuse me, gotta nitpick (Score:2)
I don't quite agree with the labeling of sausage as "ultra processed".
I'll grant you, nowadays they probably are but they don't have to be.
Am I wrong in thinking that ultra processed means containing a whole slew of thickeners (like lecithins), anti oxidation agents and preservatives that are added in chemical form?
If all you put in salami is meat, fat, salt and spices and let that cure, that isn't ultra processed in my book.
Personally, I am becoming most wary of the lecithins lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a homemade sausage might not be too bad if made in the traditional manner with traditional ingredients.
Where the nutritionists are causing a panic over cancer/dementia/heart disease is supposedly whatever the bigger processors put in their mass produced offerings sold to supermarkets to lower costs, increase shelf life etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You, and the comment you are responding to, are assuming that the problems are contained in the difference between commercial and homemade sausages. Where is the evidence of that?
What if eating sausage is correlated with obesity and obesity is causative of dementia? Then it doesn't matter "how the sausage is made".
Re: (Score:2)
Just so we're clear, I have only anecdotes. :)
But nor do I trust what is mass produced by 'Big Ag'. What we eat is radically different to what my great grandparents consumed in the 19th century thanks to industrialized farming. To blame any single factor as "obesity causes dementia" well what exactly in the salami causes obesity...
Those same great grandparents never had refrigeration either. What is passed down to modern times in the form sauerkraut, dried figs, salted fish, olives, chorizo, wine etc were a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Traditional cured salami either (A) involves nitrites in some form ("saltpetre", "celery juice", "cure #2", "Prague powder" etc), or (B) involves a high risk of botulism.
Both nitrates and botulism are harmful to health.
Sorry.
Correlation or causation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or people with dementia may struggle with meal-planning and hence go for simpler, more processed foods.
Maybe dysfunctional brain leads to junk food ? (Score:1)
Maybe it is the other way around. Early signs of brain rot is attraction to ultra-processed food ?
I know that I genetically have a hugely reduced risk of dementia before the age of 90. But I stay away from junk. So I am one to prove their theory. Or the opposite theory. Brain rot = bad food.
Ultraprocessed (Score:2)
Let's assume that this is true, like any good scientist would at some point when evaluating such claims.
What is the mechanism? What is in ultraprocessed foods that's NOT in less processed foods or unprocessed foods? How is that forming, where is it coming from, what form does it take, how does it act upon the body to predicate dementia, etc. etc. etc.?
Apart from some mystical magical handwaving, what is the mechanism by which ultraprocessed foods are supposedly making us susceptible to all kinds of condit
Re: (Score:2)
What is the mechanism? What is in ultraprocessed foods that's NOT in less processed foods or unprocessed foods? How is that forming, where is it coming from, what form does it take, how does it act upon the body to predicate dementia, etc. etc. etc.?
Its likely there are at least hundreds to thousands of significant mechanisms as this is a wide class of foods (and thus chemical compounds) put under a single name.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this is glossed over too much and makes it seem like chopping food into smaller bits or blending it together is harmful in some way. But the elusive answer is that what's in ultraprocessed foods that's not in processed/unprocessed foods are preservatives or curing agents (such as nitrates and nitrites), emulsifiers, gums, or "low-level" ingredients extracted from other foods including fats, starches, sugars, salts and hydrogenated oils.
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could have some kind of agency to test those elements in isolation, study their effects and then issue some kind of restriction or warning about their use in foods if any kind of link is proven.
You know, somebody responsible for food standards and whether or not a certain ingredient is allowed, should be discouraged, advise on a maximum amount for a reasonable person, or whether it should be banned because it's linked to cancer, dementia, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
"What is in ultraprocessed foods that's NOT in less processed foods or unprocessed foods?"
This would NOT be the question a "good scientist" would ask, as it assumes that the difference is in a missing ingredient which could very well NOT be the case.
And it's not merely foods, it's red meats.
"...what is the mechanism by which ultraprocessed foods are supposedly making us susceptible to all kinds of conditions in some invisible manner?"
Definitely NOT an invisible manner. It is literally visible, according to
Re: (Score:2)
"What is in ultraprocessed foods that's NOT in less processed foods or unprocessed foods?" This would NOT be the question a "good scientist" would ask, as it assumes that the difference is in a missing ingredient which could very well NOT be the case.
And it's not merely foods, it's red meats.
"...what is the mechanism by which ultraprocessed foods are supposedly making us susceptible to all kinds of conditions in some invisible manner?"
Speaking of coincidences, this whole thing sounds like work from the people who demand that cows be eradicated and made extinct, and that we should all just start eating insects for our protein, and make the world a better place, by not having cow farts destroy humanity, or the vegan mafia that demand we adopt a prey diet.
Definitely NOT an invisible manner. It is literally visible, according to the article. When a test exposes it, it is visible.
"Because it matters greatly before we go demonising a sausage as to why it's damaging people (if, indeed, it is at all)."
If there is any claim that appears supported in the article, it is that eating sausage is harmful. It does not claim why.
The claim is pretty specious on their part. If we take my sausage as an example, it is ground pork, or beef, or a mixture of both. It has fennel, mustard seed that is uncracked. It has
Re:Ultraprocessed (Score:4, Informative)
Apart from some mystical magical handwaving, what is the mechanism
There isn't "the" mechanism. There are hundreds of thousands of interacting mechanisms when it comes to processing food in the body. Biology is hard.
Because it matters greatly before we go demonising a sausage as to why it's damaging people (if, indeed, it is at all).
Sausages often have nitrates in them. Nitrates get converted to nitrosamines. The carcinogenic nature of those and mechanisms are reasonably well understood.
But it takes decades to understand every single different one, and every different additive will have different mechanisms. However epidemiological studies can show there's a problem even without understanding the mechanisms. In fact you'd start there to start looking for the mechanisms.
Pop-Tart (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrates and Nitrites from common vegetables (Score:1)
You will take my ultra processed chocolate... (Score:2)
from my cold, confused hands.
Ultraprocessed is a bad category (Score:2)
"Ultraprocessed" foods is a grab bag of different categories of stuff. Some of them are probably harmful. (I'll believe that of hot dogs...I couldn't believe the amount of fat in those.) Some are probably safe. (Cheese has been around for a long time, and simple cheeses seem to have an immense number of problems. I'm not talking about cheese slices..which are usually processed to be stable, easy to handle, and CHEAP!!!.) Packaged salads packed in Nitrogen seem to fit the "untraprocessed" category, but
That does it (Score:2)
How does that compare to less-processed red meat? (Score:2)
If the study aimed to pin the blame on the processing, it would need to control for people who eat red meat that aren't "ultra-processed" (whatever that means). Maybe it's the salt, or the preservatives, or the artificial ingredients. Or maybe the people who eat lots of hot dogs, bologna, bacon, and sausage, also happen not to get good exercise or a good supply of healthful foods.
I have yet to see evidence that processing such as grinding, mixing, and cooking, cause health problems. Too much salt and non-fo
Sausages? (Score:2)
So Germany and Poland would be dementia kings?
Is protein powder ultraprocessed? (Score:2)
Protein powder is ultraprocessed in the literal sense (it no longer resembles a food), but I wonder if it is also bad for health in the long term. Older folks absorb less protein and also tend to become frail in a way that permanently limits their freedom and independence. Protein is more important than commonly thought, but some people don't react well to the saturated fat in meats, and it's hard for most people to get a lot of protein from plants (after the limitation on utilization imposed by the lowest
Re:Oh look (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure it's been daily. Maybe you're imagining it, or you forgot about the days we didn't get one. While you may have a strong belief there is a daily occurrence of the stories, this might just be a paranoia that what you are eating is having an effect on your brain. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait until they rerun the tests with the expectation that H2O is the culprit because the milk lobby and alcohol lobby are paying for the study.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to do home made, stuffed sausages...mostly fresh, but often with some nitrates in there for pink color and food safety...
I also like to cure my own bacon (Hmmm....bacon)...
Is there something store bought that I'd not be putting in my home made stuff I wonder?
Re: Oh look (Score:2)
Processed food has been a bogeyman for a long time. There are big lawsuits waiting if lawyers can find something to latch on to.
Nitrates? Simple carbs that convert to glucose more quickly, making a sugar spike? Food coloring? "Everyone knows preservatives are bad!" I have a 2 week old loaf with preservatives that has no mold. It was a godsend to humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Processed food has been a bogeyman for a long time. There are big lawsuits waiting if lawyers can find something to latch on to.
Nitrates? Simple carbs that convert to glucose more quickly, making a sugar spike?
And those Nitrates are in veggies as well.
"Everyone knows preservatives are bad!" I have a 2 week old loaf with preservatives that has no mold. It was a godsend to humanity.
Preservatives are a godsend. I think it is like vaccines for some people, since people are not dropping over or end up in iron lungs any more, why should people get vaccines? And with food, the same thing can happen. "No one is getting botulism any more, so why the hell should we preserve meat?"
They better hope that uncured bacon has been stored properly.
Re: Oh look (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that the nitrates (pink salt) has a place in brisket to make corned beef, and then smoke it into pastrami...?
Glad to hear there's a fellow BBQ enthusiast out there.
I think I'm gonna fire up the offset this weekend, do some briskets....ma
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that the nitrates (pink salt) has a place in brisket to make corned beef, and then smoke it into pastrami...?
Oh, yeah - I completely forgot about corned beef.
Glad to hear there's a fellow BBQ enthusiast out there.
I think I'm gonna fire up the offset this weekend, do some briskets....maybe a chicken or two too, for the whole week to gnaw on....
There is a saying, once a man reaches 40, his interests turn to smoked meats, or to become a student of World War 2. I say it is often both.
Damn, a brisket sounds good. I've been doing a lot of Pulled pork lately, and the freezer is full of it now. Gonna need to do a brisket soon - Might need to take out a loan though. I have a butcher a few towns over where I can get it fresh never frozen - but not cheap.
Now the big brisket debate - some people trim
Re: (Score:2)
We've been seeing $3.98/lb for Prime grade briskets lately in the local grocery stores....about a dollar more regularly at Costco here in New Orleans.
I myself have started trimming my briskets a LOT....I cut the fat cap down to 1/4 inch. I also trip a lot of the thin part of the flat away, etc, but I don't waste them.
I use the scraps to re
Re: (Score:2)
We've been seeing $3.98/lb for Prime grade briskets lately in the local grocery stores....about a dollar more regularly at Costco here in New Orleans.
Crikey's! It's over 7 here - amazing, for a cut that was once just ground up. Just like chicken wings, now the most expensive part of the chicken around here.
I myself have started trimming my briskets a LOT....I cut the fat cap down to 1/4 inch. I also trip a lot of the thin part of the flat away, etc, but I don't waste them.
I use the scraps to rending into some tallow at times, or as a mix for sausages....
Adding the fat into sausage - that's intriguing. I'm always needing to add some, especially when it is all pork sausage.
>
Lately I've been using the foil boat method to finish my briskets to the 203-205F area where I usually find I'm good with the fat render and then go for the long rest after.
I started that a while back, first to have the brisket finish so I didn't have to hover near the smoker, and now it just seems like it is nicely pre-wrapped to cool off.
I've also tailored my mop to the point that it uses Pab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)